Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Ability to Deactivate Malicious App Store Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AFAIK, it is available under a new name, so running assumption is the name was violating copyright.
I'm thinking that it is a coincidence as well, they would be playing with tight legal lines if they wouldn't let somebody use something that was already downloaded. That is like not allowing me to play a song that I payed for 3 months ago after having payed the bill and all. Figuring Apple considers free downloads purchases.
I don't understand and I'm not having a go at you BUT - are you saying that even though you'd somehow bought the apps without paying for them ( these were free apps right but still required your itunes password) and you still got them even though your billing data was wrong ( or went out of date?? between the time you got them and the time you were not able to run them - though how that can happen I don't know)...and then your suggesting that Apple a) let you get the apps even though your account was out of date BUT then after that chose to selectively shut down your two FREE apps on your iphone because your account was not in order...can you see how that doesn't make sense ?
Correct, and they would need be be involved if ANY cell manufacture wanted
create a device with the feature set such as the AppStore. If you didn't do it the way they wanted, you wouldn't be allowed on the network.
See my point ?
The problem is that this is part of the EULA and has yet to be seriously tested in the courts. I for one would love to see this tested.
Imho, once it's on my hardware, the "product" is mine. Does this mean I have the right to give complete copies to everyone? No. But, imho, it's my right do with the software as I please.
For those of you are so "gung-ho" in support of this, if Apple had this ability on your Mac (which they don't), how would you feel about this? Nearly all software has in their EULAs similar wording and the word "license." If it isn't ok on your Mac, why in h*ll is it ok on your iPhone?
Sorry, doesn't hold any water.
Well, this is fine, but it would have been nice for Apple to have told the developers of this when they pulled the app originally.
In any case, I'm glad the app is back up. Definitely one of my favorite apps on the Jesus Phone.
Are the apps licensed by the developer to Apple to re-sell or licensed by proxy to the end user ? since then they are no more Apple's property than they are yours ?
Very interesting point and great that you brought these questions up.
Ultimately, imho, once it's on my device... it's mine. Before anyone brings up that EULA again, sorry, it's never been fully tested in the courts, and frankly I doubt Apple (or whoever) would win on that.
OK, to clarify my story here, I already had an established iTunes account prior to getting the iPhone 3G. I purchased the phone on the second day it was released. Between then and last week, I had no billing issues and I could download whatever I wanted from iTunes - and during that time, I installed two applications, Facebook and Last.fm.
Last week when I got an email from iTunes about my billing, my app downloading was also suspended. However, I could still run Facebook and Last.fm. It wasn't until Monday or yesterday that I couldn't run either of those two programs.
The software update had no effect on my ability to run third-party apps. I was still out of luck both before and after the update. After the software install, I updated my Paypal information in the iTunes store (in order to re-download last.fm) and then after that, Facebook was working. It's possible that this is all just weird timing, but if someone else can test this, we can know for sure.
It might not have been a scam, but it was certainly an attempt at viral marketing: Put the most expensive useless application you can think of on the store with a note in the description that you sell other cheaper apps and wait for the blogosphere to send people in their millions to have a look at the app!
Clever, certainly. In the spirit of the App Store? Probably not: If they hadn't stamped on it the App Store would soon be full of what is effectively spam
Um, no offence, but now I think you're the one with the flawed example. A car dealership cannot come and take back the car unless you fail to make your payments. Software licensing may or may not require ongoing fee payments to maintain access. Currently software on the App Store is licensed via a one-time fee. So, the software should remain functional for the licensee in perpetuity (although upgrades or access to new versions are not guaranteed).
I don't think the car lease example is equivalent.
Just my two cents ...
OK. I think it's time for everyone to stop and consider this rationally:
1) A URL has been found in a framework on the iPhone
2) There is currently no proof that any iPhone has ever phoned home via this URL. This is speculation. As the original authors says "This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while". It may suggest that, but at this stage we simply don't know
3) The purpose of this URL is actually unknown. A guess has been made based on the name in the URL that this can remotely deactivate apps but this has never been seen. It is speculation.
4) The URL is in CoreLocation, a framework used to allow apps to work out where the phone is. It seems to me that it is much more likely that this URL allows Apple to un-authorise specific apps from using CoreLocation (probably for reasons of privacy), rather than remotely disable apps, at least in CoreLocation: this URL may also be called from other, more core frameworks, to disable apps: the download from the URL is likely to be a plist that could contain fine-grained app unauthorisations preventing apps from specific things.
In short I think we are all jumping the gun somewhat here on what is mostly speculation and conjecture.
1) A URL has been found in a framework on the iPhone
2) There is currently no proof that any iPhone has ever phoned home via this URL. This is speculation. As the original authors says "This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while". It may suggest that, but at this stage we simply don't know
3) The purpose of this URL is actually unknown. A guess has been made based on the name in the URL that this can remotely deactivate apps but this has never been seen. It is speculation.
4) The URL is in CoreLocation, a framework used to allow apps to work out where the phone is. It seems to me that it is much more likely that this URL allows Apple to un-authorise specific apps from using CoreLocation (probably for reasons of privacy), rather than remotely disable apps, at least in CoreLocation: this URL may also be called from other, more core frameworks, to disable apps: the download from the URL is likely to be a plist that could contain fine-grained app unauthorisations preventing apps from specific things.
In short I think we are all jumping the gun somewhat here on what is mostly speculation and conjecture.
Don't think I'd worry about it. If there was some draconian billing-triggered fairplay interceptor then we'd surely have seen (heard) about millions of examples from the 5 billion itunes songs. Put it this way they don't turn off free podcasts ( or music you already bought) if your iTunes account lapses so I don't see them wasting valuable coding resource making it happen for apps. There is just nothing to be gained from it.
RE: the "call home" function -- doesn't everyone get software update notifications on their phones automatically? (and no notifications if you've deleted an app) There's already a system in place for either "phone home" or a constant open server connection, and Apple has said they'll definitely have push and an open server for all sorts of push notifications in September. So this part doesn't sound new or secret to me.
I buy the drug dealer cell phones. Besides, this isn't the only reason why I'm not purchasing the iPhone.
More like West Texas.
To be fair, though, the point is valid, since these apps are disappearing without direct communication from Apple ... thus the "mystery". If they were removed along with notice of reasons, then we'd all be talking about apps that were "pulled" ... not "disappeared".
It's not available under any name right now ... at least not in the Canadian App Store ... is Now Playing available anywhere else?
Wow, finally a respectable comment on issues of IP. I'm very curious as to Box Office--If Apple is unilaterally acting as judge and jury of trademark, patent, or copyright claims, I would be extremely scared. I haven't read any of the licensing/developer contracts in great detail, but Apple has NO business enforcing IP claims between third parties. It's scary to say since they are so disfunctional, but the courts are a much better realm for those kinds of issues. Between the lingering NDA and the utter opacity around the app store, I worry that Apple is creating an environment that is just a little too capriciously controlled for long-term buy-in by professional code-slingers.
I buy the drug dealer cell phones. Besides, this isn't the only reason why I'm not purchasing the iPhone.
More like West Texas.
I'd be real careful with buying phones off drug dealers - they'll definitely be the ones the feds are tracking and monitoring...
I'd say you'd be far safer with an iPhone of your own - unless of course your a drug dealer
Sorry but courts have overwhelmingly upheld EULAs. Do a google search, spend some time on EFF. Your opinion doesn't hold water in court, the agreement (EULA) you clicked on does.
If you install an anti-virus program, it can block you from using an app if it looks malicious. Millions of people use such protection. The agreement is to trade flexibility for security via that program. Similarly, if you buy an iPhone, you agree to this semi-closed ecosystem, which has quite a few advantages. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Just don't yell and act like it is unconscionable.
Besides, iPhone is a phone even though it is almost like a computer, but it has to obey different rules and regulations. For example, if a malicious program prevents you from calling 911 on a computer it is not Apple's problem, but on a phone, Apple probably would face liability. Besides, Apple does not hide its semi-closed system behind an open facade. Users know what they are getting into. It is like a computer, but not exactly. I don't think anybody is being mislead.
I don't get it. I thought Apple had to approve every single app before it went on the store anyway? If I Am Rich passed that test, how come it was removed later?